Why do men have nipples?

didymus · 03-03-2006, 10:53 PM

This might seem like a silly question to most but the more I ponder it I find it to be very deep. Why do men have nipples? We don't produce milk. Is a nipple standard on all forms of mammals and humans? Is this akin to ordering eggs and bacon hold the homefries and give me grits at a restaraunt only to have the waiter/ress tell you we can't do that, you have to take the homefries? Well, i'm not sure which animals have nipples but I know some do. I just find it interesting. You would think God would say, " we can leave out the nipple on this creature because he won't be needing them. On second thought, he might feel strange without them, ok boys put on the nipples."

Leafblade · 03-04-2006, 02:06 AM

I think it's because of humans as a species. Females have them to feed their young and the only thing that differentiates a child from being born male or female is the chromosome. Males just have a differnent chromosome from females so they get the obvious trait differences however keeping similarities. One of them just happen to be nipples. I think some other animals might also get nipples, just much smaller than females.

didymus · 03-04-2006, 04:24 AM

So according to that theory, women are the human prototype and we men are similar to them in nature.

Popeyesays · 03-04-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by didymus

This might seem like a silly question to most but the more I ponder it I find it to be very deep. Why do men have nipples? We don't produce milk. Is a nipple standard on all forms of mammals and humans? Is this akin to ordering eggs and bacon hold the homefries and give me grits at a restaraunt only to have the waiter/ress tell you we can't do that, you have to take the homefries? Well, i'm not sure which animals have nipples but I know some do. I just find it interesting. You would think God would say, " we can leave out the nipple on this creature because he won't be needing them. On second thought, he might feel strange without them, ok boys put on the nipples."

This came up in an episode of "House" last week. It was a case of pseudo-hermaphrodism. Where an outwardly femal person lacks a uterus and instead of ovaries has testicles undescended in the abdomen - usually in the approximate location of the ovaries in a female. Breasts, limited body hair no Adam's apple, skin clarity, fat distribution to all intentsfemale but having an X and a Y chromosome.

The fetus in the womb is always female UNTIL it is acted upon by testosterone and other male hormones. At that point for males like myself, the labia fuse and form a sack, the clitoris becomes longer and the eurethra moves from the base to the tip, and the testicles drop into the scrotum - poof!!!!! you're born male.

The pseudo hermaphrodite is immune to the male hormones and these morphological changes never happen, immune to testosterone the body obeys the estrogen. that all males also produce.

Nipples are part of human breast development and they form before the genetically male fetus starts to alter in response to the shifting hormones.

Regards,
Scott

path_of_one · 03-04-2006, 04:56 PM

Yep, that's pretty much it. Females are the prototype, genetically, and certain hormonal changes have to occur (stemming from having a Y chromosome) to make a fetus a male.

didymus · 03-04-2006, 06:14 PM

Great reply. I didn't know that and was truly puzzled about it. I also thought it would break some of the tension in here bringing a laugh to all. It is amazing, I forgot that all fetuses were female in the beginning and therefore nipples would be a part of it.

Now for the kicker and I can't resist throwing this in there.

If we were made in God's image then God has female attributes( I believe this anyway). God is the creator, females create life in their womb. The story of Adam being first becomes suspect to me. Any thoughts?

path_of_one · 03-04-2006, 06:56 PM

Though it's debate-able (and certainly many Christians would disagree with me), I think Adam = "humanity" or "mankind," not "a man." In fact, translation of Adam = "humankind," as in- that is the meaning of his name. And Eve of course is obvious (= "beginning"). Thus, I think these are symbolic first people rather than actual ones.

The purpose of the myth (sacred story) is in the messages about relationships between God and humanity, humanity and creation, etc. not in the details.

Also, a close read of chapters one and two of Genesis will show two accounts that are not entirely in line with one another; many scholars think that they were two creation accounts that were held by different factions of the same cultural (Jewish) group. In chapter one, males and females are made together (at the same time) and the sequence is different from chapter two, in which male is made, then animals, then female. Shows an origin for a tension between the idea that male and female are equal and both in God's image versus how it has occassionally been taken by some churches- that men are superior to women and somehow "more" in God's image.

My own experience is that God is both male and female and also neither- our Mother, our Father, and the Force behind everything. There are many scholars who believe that early Judaism had a dualistic conceptualization of God- male and female. There are remnants in the Bible- some words for God are feminine, some masculine, and some plural. There is also feminization of certain virtues, such as wisdom, who is described in Proverbs in an almost anthropomorphic and deified sense.

didymus · 03-04-2006, 07:21 PM

Thanks for that Path of One. I have read Genesis on a number of occasions and have caught many allusions to gods and some other controversial suggestions. Well, not controversial to me, only to those that would rather see God fit into a particular box. People forget that Jesus was Jewish and very much believed in the God of the Jewish history and the Old Testament. I think he expanded on it at times but at other times he seemed very loyal to those beliefs.

Popeyesays · 03-05-2006, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by didymus

Great reply. I didn't know that and was truly puzzled about it. I also thought it would break some of the tension in here bringing a laugh to all. It is amazing, I forgot that all fetuses were female in the beginning and therefore nipples would be a part of it.

Now for the kicker and I can't resist throwing this in there.

If we were made in God's image then God has female attributes( I believe this anyway). God is the creator, females create life in their womb. The story of Adam being first becomes suspect to me. Any thoughts?

I think its because gender is meaningless to God. God creates whatever He pleases from His Own will, no genetics are required.

Regards,
Scott

Leafblade · 03-05-2006, 06:46 PM

For some reason the movie Dogma hit me. In the movie the body of God was female, the voice was male and they were seperate but in a sense the same. As for the part about being created in the image of God I think people took that too literaly. I think what some people think of when being made in the image of God they think only of the physical human image. I think what was ment by that was that everything has a soul, and that soul is what should be looked at, not physical body.

didymus · 03-05-2006, 06:51 PM

I would agree with that. When I think of God I don't imagine a physical being but rather a spirit/soul of some sort. Light is another image that comes to mind. God can't possibly be limited to gender. I use Him alot but this is more out of habit. I really don't envision God as male.

bananabrain · 03-06-2006, 05:36 PM

the classical rabbinic commentators were eminently aware of what appear to academics to be contradictory accounts and are very much concerned with the use of these to derive law, learning and enlightenment, rather than picking the Text into bits - would you take an mp3 file and try to hear the music better by analysing the digital 1s and 0s that make it up? what would you have at the end of that and how would it have contributed to your appreciation of the art behind it?

it may surprise you to know that there are many lessons derived from what is both said and not said in the various descriptions of the Creation and that this section is considered to be probably the most difficult part of the Torah.

just as a starter, though, one of the midrashic sources uses a difference in phraseology between "G!D Created a human" and "male and female G!D Created them" to ask a question about precisely what is going on - the answer being given is that the first human was actually Created as an *androgynous* creature, which was split into two to give us "adam" and "eve". by this logic, the first male is treated as a divergent from the dual possibilities of the underlying potential.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Thomas · 03-07-2006, 03:12 PM

Path of One and others have posted some nice comments re Genesis and the gender issue.

It's worth trying to read Genesis with reference to the Hebrew text (I use www.blueletterbible.org) for clues - in this case 'ish' (man) and 'ishshah' (woman) as opposed to Adam (adamah - of the earth), etc.(Genesis 2)

I always consider the gender of God as male because the Creator God is symbolically 'active', 'causative', etc - God acts in a 'One' way, rather than a 'Two' way, if you think about symbology, numerology, etc.

Humanity should act in a 'Two' way in response to God - passive, receptive, nurturing, etc - so humanity is essentially feminine in response

The discussion gets 'involved' when gender politics are brought into play, and really this clouds the issue, as does the insistence that there was a bloke called Adam, and a lady called Eve ...

Many of the Greek Fathers treat Genesis as a work of metaphysics rather than history ... it's more about the principles at play, than the people ...

Thomas

path_of_one · 03-08-2006, 12:57 AM

Very interesting, Thomas. I like the idea of the principles, not the people, at work.

I would throw in a word of caution, however, that our ideas of gender are mostly formed by our culture. Thus, there are cultures in the world in which active/creative force is female and males are seen as nurturing. I see both aspects in God- both active/causative and also nurturing/listening/comforting, thus my feeling that God is both Mother and Father (both/neither).

Really I see God as genderless, but our ideas of gender get in the way.

Quahom1 · 04-25-2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Very interesting, Thomas. I like the idea of the principles, not the people, at work.

I would throw in a word of caution, however, that our ideas of gender are mostly formed by our culture. Thus, there are cultures in the world in which active/creative force is female and males are seen as nurturing. I see both aspects in God- both active/causative and also nurturing/listening/comforting, thus my feeling that God is both Mother and Father (both/neither).

Really I see God as genderless, but our ideas of gender get in the way.

However, you pointed out a very potent concept. Take a human (androgenous), and fill with one horomone or another during developmental stage. You get underdeveloped genatalia (yet different enough). For the next 10 to 12 years the body remains sexually underdeveloped. Then stage two kicks in, and the horomones go to work...

Now, female and male traits really bloom. Not only physically, but neurologically, emotionally, as well. While for example the pectorals in the male thicken and expand, the exterior of the epidermus remains the same. Fat does not gather in the area and milk glands remain underdeveloped.

However, what many women don't realize is that there is a period in a pubescent male's timeline, when he too experiences a slight swelling of the breast area, a sensitivity to the aeuralas, and much confusion as to why. It's almost as if the body is trying to make a decision on which way to go (it doesn't last long, usually a few months).

During this time, there are many who suffer teasing by other males in the locker room (even though they go through it as well).

I happened to catch my sons, going through that issue (man, were they bothered by it, and had no intention of telling anyone their concerns). Walked into the bathroom, and one of them was gingerly exploring his chest in front of the mirror. He backed away from the mirror like he'd been jolted with electricity! "What's the matter?" I asked matter of fact. "Chest sensitive? Nipples hurt? A little swelling there?"

He nodded rather sheepishly, yes. So I got him and his brother together and explained the facts of life. "Bodies go through changes, very fast. This is one of them. It is perfectly normal. It will go away in a few months. Don't wear wool flannel shirts without a tee shirt, or you'll be a hurtin' puppy...your body is becoming an adult male's body...don't sweat it."

I will tell you, the look of relief on both of their faces was, PRICELESS!!!

They went and told their friends who were worried about the same thing! I think that is one of the few Junior Highschool classes that went through that part of puberty without a personal complex. (lol).

You make an astute point. How can a decidedly male body be converted to that resembling a female body with horomone injections? Because for humans, the "mold" appears to be gender neutral, until certain internal ingredients are added.

Even if nothing were done physically to a human's outward appearance, but horomones were added, significant changes will occur to the human body, physically (and emotionally/psychologically). Certain parts will atrophy, while other parts will become enhanced.

Ever noticed a male who drinks alot of "beer"? Besides the belly, the chest takes on a different look. I read somewhere that too much beer causes estrogen to be produced above normal quantities for males.

Interesting thread...

v/r

Q